Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Nagaraj

Pages: 1 ... 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 [318] 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 ... 342
4756
Dear I,

This body itself is a Sadhana. Once Kavyakanta after introspection said to Bhagawan, for one to lead his life, a maximum of Rs. 3 (or something) would suffice, for food and basic necessities, is there any need more than this? Bhagawan replied "oye, you need so much is it? wont this body itself suffice for your living?"

Its good if one gets confused. So long 'I' looks outside for answers, confusions after confusions will come. Only when 'I' looks for answers from 'I' only then confusions will cease. See who is the 'I' that wants to do some Sadhana.

Salutations to Sri Ramana.

4757
General topics / Re: SADHANA...
« on: December 23, 2009, 07:56:30 AM »
Dear I,

It is best to ask this question yourself. Whatever anybody tells your here, it is going to be absolutely their own experience and evolution. The best person to ask this question is yourself (I) and only 'I' can show light on this.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4758
Operating System and Software Issues / Re: Photoshop CS4
« on: December 23, 2009, 07:15:07 AM »
Dear Graham,

Thanks so much for your reply. Yes, I am trying to make a sign of 30 feet long by 28 inches tall. I was stuck with the understanding that effect will never be satisfactory after resize, but like you said, the size is designed to be viewed from a distance, the output should take care. I'l try this as suggested by you. I was stuck with this issue for some time now. I tried getting solution from various web related help sites which was of no avail.

Thanks so much

Nagaraj

4759
Operating System and Software Issues / Photoshop CS4
« on: December 22, 2009, 08:10:48 PM »
I am trying to make some Glowsign using PSCS4, which is 360"/28" in size. Certain Filter options have got disabled, and I am trying to use the Render/Lighting option. But what I observed is that the same feature is available when I make a smaller picture. I use Vista with 2GB RAM and 32 BIT Op System.

Any Helpers?

Thanks

4760
General topics / Re: Where Are the Jnanis ?
« on: December 22, 2009, 06:23:43 PM »
Dear I,

On your query whether there is anyone else on the plannet. My "I' answer is No. There is no one else apart from your (I) Self.

Yes there is an Ashram for Jananis or meditation centre or a church where people talk about all these things. exactly like a sort of working group... doing some practice, disscuss etc... It is in YOU (I) itself. Its the Discussion and doubting analysing etc... everything - between 'I' and 'I'

There is only I everywhere. All that is seen heard everything is the I. nothing apart from it

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4761
Dear I,

Out of 24 gurus of Dhathathyreya only 4 are Human Gurus and none of the 24 Gurus of Dhathathreya were said to be realized souls as well. Its all what we take from Guru.

Anything can be our Guru. Ultimately all Guru's will be found as the Self itself

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4762
Dear I,

You 'I' are saying 'I' need not die and at the same time you 'I' say the role also has to continue.

Both of which are Aham Padartha. I meant this has to end and untill this 'I' is around there is death, rebirth, death, rebirth.... There will be no end to this.

It cannot be so.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4763
No Dear I,

This is the contention in 'I'

This 'I' is not there to continue... we 'I' just believe it it can continue and it cannot bound consciousness - is only theory.  Please see 'I' 'Who' post, He 'I' has written elaborately in his 'my' 'I' book - Maha Yoga illustrated above. This 'I' got itself clarified from Maha Yoga.

no denying that this 'I' is ignorant. But is just seeing the real light of the Self eternal I. 'I' has to die here some time or the other.
 
Salutations to Sri Ramana

4764
Dear I,

:)

The object of pointing out "you I said - "As per Swami Suddhananda, there are two........" is wrong notion, actually it is ignorance to say "As per..." because it is yours (I) very own"

is this

"Tell me ... this interpretation that "as per ... is ignorance" ... is that not ignorance itself?

Yes it is. It is ignorance of 'I'  and this will continue so long 'I' continues

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4765
Dear I and I's

I would like to point out a small thing in your post:

you I said - "As per Swami Suddhananda, there are two........" is wrong notion, actually it is ignorance to say "As per..." because it is yours (I) very own. when you read what Swami Suddhananda said, it has now become yours very own, whatever it may be.

There cannot be any tendency to stop playing the role as the role itself is Mithya. Its like saying after waking up, the dream still continues or has to continue and not allowing this dream to continue after waking up itself is Vasana or continuity of dream is also vasana, how can it be possible? its like saying, a childless mother giving birth to a child. There is no roles at all. Still why 'I' thinks that there is role and that role has to be played, continued? Does the Self even after realising continues playing the role? Ramana Bhagawan was Ati Ashrami, beyond any stages of life i.e. even beyond Sanyasi. He - (I) did not play any role at all. not even the role of a Rishi, sadhu or even for that matter a sage as well. Its only the 'seer' 'you', 'I' fit him (yourself - I) all these decorations

I spent some time to see the Vedanta Saram or Maha Yoga, by 'Who' or Lakshmana Sarma:

The Sage tells us that there is only one kind of Deliverance, namely Egolessness. Since the world has no existence without the ego, it follows that the Sage is bodiless in fact, whatever he may seem to be. Even those that think that the Sage has a body and mind, and are unable to realise that they are unreal, can understand this much, that his causal body — which is the primary ignorance — has been dissolved, and that therefore the Sage — who is just the real Self and
nothing else — is in no way connected with the surviving, subtle and gross bodies, as the ignorant one thinks himself to be. For the Sage, therefore, nothing exists except the Self; there is neither body, nor mind, nor world, nor other persons.

The Sage himself has repeatedly emphasised that for him there is no problem at all — no need of reconciling inconsistencies. From his point of view all the three bodies are non-existent. Not only that, he does not even recognise that they existed before. Hence it is only as a concession to the semi-ignorant disciple that the distinction is mentioned in the books. The absolute truth of Deliverance is that It is bodiless and worldless, because Deliverance is the state where the Truth alone shines.

The Jivan-Mukta is therefore not a person. But because of the dual role stated before, personality is attributed to him. In the Upanishadic lore this point of view is tolerated, and it is said that his body will be subject to the law of causality while it survives. By the force of this law his body will be
affected by the reactions — pleasant or unpleasant — of previous actions, which are called karmas. These are divided into three parts or lots. There is the particular lot of karmas which came to fruition at birth — which gave the Sage the present body, and will go on regulating what happens to it till it dies. This karma is called prarabdha, because it has begun to yield fruit. There is another lot of karma called agami, ‘actions to come.’ The remainder is called sanchita, the reserve; this is an enormous lot, because of the great number of the past lives that have been lived. It is said that the first lot alone retains its power, but that the second and third lots become liquidated when one becomes a Sage — when individuality is ‘lost’. The Sage will have no more rebirths. Nor will he go to other worlds. But he will reap the fruits of the prarabdha or current karma; so says the ancient lore in some places. We shall see that this is not strictly correct.

Those that have not heard and understood the truth of the Natural State — namely that it is not inimical, like the Kevala, to bodily activity — raise a question about the Sage, the answer to which is not easy to understand for all; even among the Sage’s disciples, there are some who cannot understand the answer; but that is so because they are believers in a fascinating, but complicated creed, in which the chief tenet is that the world is real as such; it is therefore quite natural that they should refuse to understand the Sage’s teachings, of which the essential part is that the world is not real as such.

We have two kinds of views about the Sage. First class of people argue thus: “The person called Ramana Maharshi lives in the world very much like other people. He eats, sleeps, acts, talks and does other things. He remembers the past and answers questions about it; therefore he has both ego and mind. Also, he says ‘I’, ‘you’ and ‘he’, just as we do. Therefore he is not a Jivan- Mukta, though we are willing to allow that he is a holy person.” We need have no quarrel with these people. It is clear that they imagine the Kevala Nirvikalpa to be the final state. Hence they are unable to understand how a Sage can live among men as a Light from the real Self.

To be able to recognise a Sage one must be a genuine devotee of the real Self. This implies a refinement of understanding, a humbleness of spirit and other virtues. For such a one the Sage has a real and abiding attracti on. On the other hand those that are in love with bondage — even though they are learned in the sacred lore — are not so attracted; they are prosperous in a worldly sense and think themselves happy; and they are perhaps afraid that if they go to the Sage, he might effect a change in their outlook, of the consequences of which they are sincerely afraid; being so afraid, they keep at a safe distance from the Sage. But those that have been attracted to the Sage, having felt keenly the need of a competent Guru, are able to see that he is something unique. They may take time to understand that he is a Sage. That is because they need first to understand what a Sage is, and what are the unfailing marks of one. The
one unfailing mark is the non-perception of difference.

Now we shall consider the other view — that which is upheld by certain sectarian devotees of the Sage. They say that he is a Sage. But they also maintain that he is a person. They say that he is an exalted ‘Person’. They hold it as an article of belief that personality is real, and that it persists in Deliverance, though, inconsistently enough, they admit that the ego is lost in Deliverance. The Sage, they say, has a mind, and therefore has a distinct existence. They say that in Deliverance the mind is changed into something wonderful and becomes endowed with divine powers of ‘siddhis’. To these powers they attach a profound importance. They seem to think that it is these powers that prove him to be a Sage.

The essential teaching of the Sage is the Truth of Non-Becoming, which means that the Reality never actually became the three, these being merely creations of the ego-mind, which is itself unreal. In other words the Sage is at one with the Sage Sankara, in saying that this is all Maya. He explains that Deliverance consists in the reduction to nothingness of what is always nothing; the threefold false appearance is unreal even now, but appears as real through ignorance. That appearance will cease in such a way that it could not even be said that it appeared before and ceased to appear later. This is made clear by the following utterance of the Sage, which tells us what is accomplished by the Guru’s grace: “Reducing the unreal to unreality, and causing the one real Self to shine, the Guru puts a final end to the unreal soul.”

The rejection of the Truth of Non-Becoming has led these disciples to misunderstand the Sage. One such misunderstanding is pointed out and corrected by the Sage in the following: “Ignorant people say, ‘The Sage sees differences, but enjoys non-difference in them.’” This non-perception of differences is twofold, as nonperception of difference between oneself and others and non-perception of difference among others. The former is manifested by the Sage’s indifference to praise and censure. The latter is seen in what is termed the ‘equal eye’ which is referred to in the famous but much-misunderstood verse of the Gita, where it is said that Sages look with equal eye on all creatures. The meaning of which is as follows "To one who is firmly established in the blissful
Natural State beyond change, and therefore is not aware of difference — who does not think ‘I am one, and he is another’ — who is there, other than the Self? If anyone says anything about him, what matters it? For him it is just the same as if it was said by himself.”

On this point the Sage says: “It is wrongly said by the ignorant that the Sage sees difference, but enjoys non-difference in them. The truth is that he does not see difference at all.”

Besides, the primary difference is that between subject and object, and in the State of Non-difference, namely the Egoless State, this difference does not survive. Hence perception is impossible in that State. It is therefore absurd to describe the Sage as perceiving non-difference. He can be rightly described
only as not perceiving difference. Perhaps what these sectarians mean is that the Sage knows the underlying Unity while seeing the differences. If so, then we have to ask whether this ‘Knowledge of the Unity’ is experiential or merely inferential. This Revelation makes it clear to us that so long as differences
are being perceived — that is so long as the ego survives — only inferential or theoretical knowledge of the Unity is possible, not Experience.

An argument advanced by these sectarians is that there must be something to maintain the distinction between one Sage and another. They here take it for granted there is a distinction, and to account for it they claim that each Sage has a subtle body of his own. We have seen that the subtle body is not other
than the ego, and that the latter is just a hyphen joining two mutually negatory things, the real Self and the body. It logically follows from this that there is no distinction between Sage and Sage and this is true because the Sage is not the knower or enjoyer of the Self, but utterly identical with the Self. This is what Sage Sri Ramana says on this point: “It is from ignorance that you say, ‘I have seen this Sage; I shall see that other Sage also.’ If you know by experience the Sage that is within you, then all Sages will be seen to be one.”


What I have been trying to tell is clearly said here:

It may be said that we do see a body and mind belonging to the Sage. But so do we see other bodies and minds, and the teaching is that they are unreal. The truth is that it is our mind that creates the Sage’s mind and body, just as it creates the whole world, including God. We see the Sage as a person in our dream of relativity, occurring in the sleep of ignorance. In the Guru Ramana Vachana Mala we are told: “The body or mind that appears as pertaining to the Sage — who is, in truth, intangible like the sky —  is just a reflection of the body or mind of him that sees it. It is not real.”1 Whatever may be the case of other men, disciples ought not, we are told, to entertain the notion that the Sage is embodied. In the same book it is said: “Understand that he that regards as really embodied, the Sage, his Guru — who appears like a human being, but who is really Infinite Consciousness — is sinful and of impure mind.”

The immature disciple cannot help making the mistake here pointed out. And there is some excuse for him, because he may plausibly argue that only the causal body of the Sage is dissolved, but that the other two bodies survive. But he must outgrow this tentative point of view. How can he himself attain absolute bodilessness, as pure Spirit, if he regards his Guru as not having attained that State?

We have to recognise, therefore, that though the Sage appears to us behaving like a person in the world, he is in fact the pure Consciousness, which cannot even be described as the Witness of the activities of the mind and the body. A question was put to the Sage: “Does the Sage see the world as others do?” The Sage replied: “The question does not arise for the Sage, but only for the ignorant. He puts the question because of his ego. To him the answer is. ‘Find out the Truth of him to whom the question occurs.’

Thus we have to conclude that the Sage does not see the world and has no part or lot in it. What seem to us to be his activities are not therefore really his. Being egoless and mindless, he does not will those actions. “If the Self were ever himself the doer than He himself would reap the fruits of actions. But since the sense of doership is lost on the Experience of the Infinite Self, by the Quest ‘Who am I that is a doer?’, with it will be lost the three kinds of actions. The wise know this state as timeless Deliverance.”*


Here is most important point:

From this, incidentally, we learn that Deliverance is perfect and absolute, not qualified, as might appear from some of the Upanishadic texts. These tell us that a portion of the karma of him who has attained sage-hood remains unaffected, and will be exhausted only when his body dies. This karma is the prarabdha or current karma, that which came to fruition at birth, which gave him the body, and will regulate all that happens to it till its death. We are to understand that the liability to reap the fruits of this karma is only apparent, not real. The Sage emphasises this in the following: “What is said in the books, namely that the actions of the future and those of the reserve, belonging to the Sage, are certainly lost, but that the current karma is not lost, is intended for the ignorant. (But) just as one wife out of many cannot remain sumangali (nonwidow) on the death of the husband, so all the three divisions of karma are lost, when the doer, the ego, is lost.”1 ‘I am doer’ is a thought; it cannot survive the ego.

Since the Sage is mindless, he is in no way related to the world and its affairs. That is the essence of his being free. He does not feel obliged to do certain things or not to do certain other things. Whatever he does, he does spontaneously and automatically, without fore-thought, as one would do that has no mind. The ancient lore tells us that the Sage is not assailed by regrets, ‘I have done wrong,’ or ‘I have not done right.’ The Sage expresses the same truth as follows: Can the Sage that dwells in the State of Unity with the Truth, which arises by consuming the ego, and is calm, happy and beyond relativity and is therefore wantless, be bound to do anything whatever in the world? Since he is unaware of anything other than the Self, how can his State — which is mindless — be conceived by the mind?* Thus we have to conclude that for him the words ‘duty’ and its correlative ‘right’ are meaningless.

Of course, having a divine mission to fulfil — to illumine and uplift those that are ripe for Deliverance — he is not inactive.But he does not will the actions he does. In fact his activity is far more efficient because of his egolessness than it would be if he willed them. The sacred lore and the Sage tell us that the Sage is a non-doer and great doer at the same time. There is no contradiction in this, because he is not a doer in truth, but appears to be greatly active to those who see him. He cannot be really active, because if he were, he would be aware of persons different from the Self; we have been clearly told this is not the case. Actions are willed out of desire; he is desireless, Aptakama, because he is happy in the Self, Atmarama.

4766
Dear I,

:)

What 'I' thinks is that once when 'I' realises that 'I' is not role - Ravana but but only the one that has been playing the role so long. Then and there 'I' says there is no more any need to continue that role. Here only the seer 'I' feels that the role need not stop. Its like streatching your 'I' palm and believing that there is an apple and 'I' can eat it and enjoy its taste. So long it was enjoying eating and tasting the apple. Once when 'I' faces the death of this belief that the palm is actually empty, there is nothing in the palm, then why would 'I' want to continue to relish that there is apple in in the palm and that 'I' can continue to enjoy its taste? is this not absurd? as a child the elders make tea, coffee, rice for small kids to play with them without any of these but only actions with small vessels and cups with no ingredients at all and the child 'I' relishes all this, cooking, feeling the heat, taste etc... but now when the child has grown up, and if still if the elder plays the same game with the child of cooking and eating (Soppu Saaman, dnt know if you have heard this) the child is not impressed, it does not play that again for it now knows what is real cooking. The role has to end completely. if not, there is still some amount of delusion.

As consciousness, we do not and cannot know anything. what ever 'I' thinks that as consciousness there is no thoughts or no body, etc... is all again the ideas of the 'I' person. Who is saying that Ramana did not have thoughts here again, its the 'I' person.

you - I say -  "So if someone thinks Body needs to end for the Self to be realized --- what would you tell him? The body need not end ... coz its already jada ... lifeless. The Mind need not be Killed ... coz mind is already jada ... Only Consciousness is Live. All Else is already jada ... so the question of ending that which is never alive is itself as sign of ignorance!"

here when 'I' says "so the question of ending that which is never alive is itself as sign of ignorance!" how then can it be that the role can still continue when the role itself is not there in first place?

Body is itself a thought! As long as the body is there so long 'I' - thoughts are there.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4767
Dear I,

1.

I - (you) say "without thoughts a person does not function" Here the person who does not function is the I - ego.
I - (you) say "I firmly believe I am a man now" is again identification with the body as a man.
I - (you) say "I see myself as consciousness" yes, but only that 'seeing' has to be 'being' but then consciousness will not acknowledge itself as consciousness. it still is identification with some idea of consciousness because consciousness cannot know itself. There is no meaning for consciousness, so 'I' cannot say it/I is consciousness. Who is this 'I' that is telling that it is consciousness?

WRT Ramakrishna, honestly speaking, I does not know! 'I' can not interpret Ramakrishna, what he said, what he meant, etc... what details are available are only written records of devotees, what they/devotees/writers (I's) saw (As you read Ramakrishna's devotees written record, I - you see/read it, It is your(I) first hand experience of what you have read bout Ramakrishna) therefore ultimately only I - (you) see what Ramakrishna said, understood it based on what I - (you) knows and the published books of RK Math and all other books are only what the writers have understood. Infact all the read books are verily my/yours - 'I' own. And when you read any book or just anythin, it solely becomes your own for ultimately, its you (I) who gives meaning to what is written or read or said. Who is this I?

Its like the round robin game, where 10 people are made to stand in a line and the first person is asked to describe to another one by one what he is shown secretly but only once and by the time this secret is reached the last person, it is entirely different from what originally the first person saw and told it to his immediate person!

2.

I - (you) say "They withdrew the mind from pain... that is an ability or mind control ... that is possible ... when the person has great mind control , he can withdraw his mind. That explains the surgery."

3.

I - (you) say "The normal day to day life, Ramana experienced pain. There is no alternative to it. When body is pinched whether Jnani or otherwise, experiences pain. No alternative to it. that is why Ramana himself said the body had pain."


 ------  is only what I - (you) knows or thinks it to be! Is exactly what the various interpretations of various book writers of what they (I) saw their Jnanis do or say. Can you (I) or anyone (I) ever vouch if what Ramana really meant by what we (I) believe or understand it to be?

Each words uttered by Jnanis can never be interpreted by 'I' person. Therefore 100% of books can never exactly say what Jnani's meant for all that they heard or saw!

Nobody knows

when I say "I - (you) say" I mean, as I have read the post, your post has become mine, your points are mine, and for the same (your) points, I am telling (I) what (I) knows of the same (your) points. I is just like a computer processor. when I see's 2+2=4 written on a board. as I read it I analysis if 2+2=4, if its answer is not 4, it says 2+2<>4 but 2+2=1.

Dear I, no member here is testing you (I). Infact all members here are verily You itself - I. Therefore if at all there is a testing or threatening, its you itself. 'I' testing 'I'

I is seen here as just various other selves (I's). what ever the other selves (I's) write here are verily your (my - I)) own as you (I) read it.

Salutations to Sri Ramana


4768
General topics / Re: The Importance of Sravana, Manana etc.,
« on: December 20, 2009, 08:16:19 PM »
Dear I,

I am reminded the replies of Bhagawan to Sri Kavyakanta in context to Sravana and Manana where Bhagawan says

"If one watches whence the notion 'I' arises, the mind is absorbed in that, that is Tapas"
"When you recite a Mantra, watch where the sound is coming from, within you - 'I', When you sing a song or a prayer, watch where it is emanating from?, your heart"

similarly, if 'I' concentrates where from one is hearing (Sravana) and where from one is getting clarity (Thelivu, in tamil) it is all to be found in the 'I' , the Self itself!

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4769
General topics / Re: destiny
« on: December 20, 2009, 08:07:10 PM »
Dear I,

A devotee once asked "Is there destiny? And if what is destined to happen will happen is there any use in prayer or effort or should we just remain idle?

Bhagavan replied: There are only two ways to conquer destiny or be independent of it. One is to enquire for whom is this destiny and discover that only the ego is bound by destiny and not the Self, and that the ego is non-existent. The other way is to kill the ego by completely surrendering to the Lord, by realizing one’s helplessness and saying all the time: ‘Not I but Thou, oh Lord!’, and giving up all sense of ‘I’ and ‘mine’ and leaving it to the Lord to do what he likes with you. Surrender can never be regarded as complete so long as the devotee wants this or that from the Lord. True surrender is love of God for the sake of love and nothing else, not even for the sake of salvation. In other words, complete effacement of the ego is necessary to conquer destiny, whether you achieve this effacement through Self-enquiry or through bhakti-marga.

Salutations to Sri Ramana

4770
Dear I,

Once a devotee stood near Sri Ramana Maharshi and said “Swami, I have only one desire to put my head on Bhagavan’s foot and do namaskaram (obeisance). Bhagavan must grant me this favour. "Oh! is that the desire! But then which is the foot and which is the head?” asked Bhagavan. No reply. After pausing for a while Bhagavan said, “Where the self merges, that is the foot.” “Where is that place?” asked that devotee. “Where? It is in one’s own self. The feeling ‘I’ ‘I’, the ego, is the head. Where that aham vritti (ego) dissolves, that is the foot of the Guru.”

Salutations to Sri Ramana

Pages: 1 ... 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 [318] 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 ... 342